The Coming Week's Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.

This month’s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by:

Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris
The Lewy Family Foundation
Marilyn and Edward Kaplan

 To dedicate future editions of Steinsaltz Daf Yomi,
perhaps in honor of a special occasion or in memory of a loved one, click here.

Pesachim 2a-b

The first Mishnah in Masechet Pesachim teaches about the law that requires bedikah - a search for leaven - on the night of erev Pesach, the 14^th of Nissan. The expression used by the Mishnah in teaching this law is ohr le-arba-ah asar bodkin et he-hametz le-ohr ha-ner, which is translated as "on the night of the 14^th we search for leaven by the light of a candle." The difficulty with this is that the first word - ohr - appears to mean "the evening of" even though it usually means "light" (as, in fact, it does at the end of the Mishnah's teaching - le-ohr ha-ner, "the light of a candle").

Explaining how the word ohr comes to mean "the evening of" is such a difficult question that the entire first daf (=page) of Masechet Pesachim is dedicated to this one issue.  So many different explanations are given that the Rishonim ask why the Gemara continues to quote other proofs that ohr really can mean "the evening before," even after convincing arguments have been brought.  The Rashba is quoted as saying that as an obvious question, the issue was raised in all of the yeshivot where this Mishnah was studied. When the Gemara was edited, the various answers were all collected and put together.

In his commentary on the Mishnah, Maimonides points out that Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nassi who edited the mishnayot chose an obscure word to open the Masechet because he preferred to make use of a positive word at the beginning of the tractate, rather than a word that carries with it connotations of darkness. As we will see, this explanation is given by the Gemara later on.

As an example of a proof offered by the Gemara that the word ohr can legitimately be used to mean "evening," the Gemara quotes a passage from Tehillim (148:3) that describes how the kokhavei ohr - the stars of ohr - offer praise to God. Since stars are in the sky at night, clearly this means "night stars" and the word ohr can mean "night." The Gemara responds that this is not a proof, since it may simply mean "stars that give light." This argument is rejected by the Gemara, since that would imply that only stars that give light praise God, while stars that do not give light do not.

Some commentaries understand the Gemara's reference to stars which do not give light as referring to comets or the moon, whose light is reflected from the sun, as they do not have internal light sources. This does not seem to be the Gemara's intent, and, in fact, there are certainly dark stars in the heavens which do not give off light whose presence and location can be found through other means, such as the gravitational forces of black holes in space.

Pesachim 3a-b

As noted on the last daf (=page), the Mishnah that opens Masechet Pesachim begins with the word ohr, which is used to mean "the evening of," even though that definition is an unusual one. The Gemara suggests that this term was chosen, rather than simply using leil – "the night of," because it is lashon me'alia – "a higher level form of speech." The attempt to raise the level of sensitivity to word usage is supported by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's teaching that a person should always be careful to keep from saying something inappropriate. This is supported by a number of passages from the Tanakh, all of which prefer to speak in a cumbersome manner, rather than using a simple, direct word that conveys negative ideas. As an example of this, Rav Aha bar Ya'akov points to the passage where King Shaul wonders why David did not appear for the Rosh Hodesh meal (I Shmuel 20:21). Rather than saying "perhaps he was tameh" – i.e. defiled, the passage records him saying "perhaps something happened to him and it turned out that he was lo tahor" – i.e. not pure.

As is commonplace in the Gemara, the technical ruling is followed by a number of illustrations. In one of them, three kohanim who were participating in the Temple service were comparing the portions that they received from the lehem ha-panim (showbread) that is distributed. Since there were many kohanim, they had each gotten a very small piece. The first one said, "mine is the size of a bean." The second one said, "mine is the size of an olive." The third one said, "mine is the size of a lizard's tail." Upon hearing the expression that the third kohen used, referring to an unclean animal, the authorities checked his background information and discovered that he should not have been participating in the service.

Aside from the Gemara's issue with use of this term, it is interesting to examine where such an expression would come from. The choice of "a lizard's tail" as an independent measure of size stems from the fact that oftentimes a lizard will shed his tail if is become caught and will grow another one. Since a lizard's tail is about 4 centimeters long, clearly it describes a very small amount.

Pesachim 4a-b

Who is obligated to search their home for hametz?

Obviously every homeowner is obligated to make sure that his house is free of hametz by searching for it. The Gemara on our daf (=page) asks about the case of a rental – is the renter obligated to search because the hametz belongs to him, or is the owner obligated to search because the hametz is in a house owned by him? The Ran points out that in such a case, on a Biblical level, most probably neither of them are obligated to search. The renter is not obligated, since he does not own the house; the owner is not obligated, since the hametz does not belong to him. Nevertheless, the Gemara is asking on a Rabbinic level – who is obligated to search.

The Gemara concludes that if the keys were in the hand of the renter before the evening of the 14^th of Nissan, then he is obligated to search. If he only gains access to the property after that time, then the obligation to search falls upon the owner.

How about a case where someone rents a house on the 14^th under the assumption that it has already been searched for hametz, only to find that it has not been searched? Can the renter claim that the transaction was a mekah ta'ut – a transaction made under false impression that would allow him to cancel the agreement? Abayye rules that under no circumstances can this be considered a mekah ta'ut. He argues that in places where everyone does the bedikah themselves we would argue that a Jewish man should be pleased to do a mitzvah himself. Even in places where people pay for others to do the bedikah in their homes, a person should be pleased to spend money in performance of a mitzvah.

The Ritva argues that if, in fact, people usually pay for bedikah to be done, and in this case the renter entered the deal under the impression that it was already paid for, the renter will be able to demand his money back from the owner of the house. The Ran disagrees, saying that although the mitzvah originally was the obligation of the owner, since it is the renter who benefits from it while the owner derives nothing from the removal of the hametz, he cannot be forced to pay for it.

Pesachim 5a-b

The search for hametz takes place the evening prior to the 14^th of Nissan, but one is allowed to continue eating hametz until mid-day. The Gemara teaches that hametz is Biblically forbidden beginning at noon on that day. A baraita is brought that suggests a number of different opinions regarding the source for this halakha, all based on the passage (Shemot 12:15) akh ba-yom ha-rishon tashbitu se'or mibataikhem – "but on the first day you should destroy the leaven from your homes."

Rabbi Yishmael asks – how do we know that the "first day" mentioned in the pasuk (=verse) refers to the day before Pesach?  Because of the passage (Shemot 34:25) that teaches "do not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice on leaven" meaning that the korban Pesach, which is prepared on erev Pesach, cannot be brought at a time when leaven is still permitted.

Rabbi Akiva teaches that the first day must mean erev Pesach, because work is forbidden on Yom Tov (=Jewish holiday) as it is on Shabbat. Given that burning is one of the forbidden activities, how can we burn leaven on Yom Tov? So the command to destroy hametz on the first day must refer to the day before Pesach.

Rabbi Yossi argues that the word Akh in the pasuk implies a division of the day, so that only on part of it will hametz be forbidden.

Rava learns three basic rules from Rabbi Akiva's teaching –

1. the appropriate method for destroying hametz is burning
2. the passage that teaches about fire as prohibited on Shabbat emphasizes that every forbidden activity of Shabbat is illegal in its own right
3. although making use of fire on Yom Tov is permitted for activities like cooking, it is not permitted for other purposes.

Of the 39 types of activities that are forbidden on Shabbat, burning (i.e. making use of fire) is unique in that it is the only one specifically mentioned in the Torah. At the beginning of Parashat Vayakhel we are taught "Six days you should work and on the seventh day you will have a holy Shabbat to God, whoever works on that day will be put to death. You should not kindle fire in the places that you live on the Shabbat day."  In an attempt to explain why this particular melakha deserves special mention, some Tannaim say that it is unique in that its punishment will only be that of a lav – a simple forbidden act – whose punishment is malkot (=lashes), rather than a death penalty. Rabbi Akiva in the baraita that is quoted in our Gemara takes a different position. According to him it is separated from the others in order to teach that each one of the melakhot is forbidden on its own, so that the individual who transgresses the Shabbat does not need to perform all of the forbidden activities in order to be held liable. Transgressing even one such activity is enough to be punished.

Pesachim 6a-b

Rav Yehudah quotes Rav as teaching that even after a person searches his house to remove the hametz, he needs to be mevatel – to nullify - the hametz, as well. Rava explains that the need to do so stems from a concern that on the holiday itself someone might come across a gluska yafah – a nice cake – that had not been found in the original search, and he might hesitate about destroying it.

According to some manuscripts, Rav Yehudah's original ruling obligates a person to nullify the hametz be-libo – in his heart. Based on this reading the Ran and the Ramban explain that the main issue here is that a clear mental decision should be made that the hametz is valueless to the person as Pesach begins. The Ritva indicates that even if there is no obligation to make a statement out loud, ideally the person should say the words of nullification. Others argue that the Gemara is trying to emphasize that someone who says the formula of nullification should make sure that he means it in his heart, as well.

The Ran points out that on a Biblical level, searching for hametz and destroying it is enough preparation for the holiday, and even if some hametz is left, there would be no transgression. Rava's explanation that we fear finding hametz that had been missed accounts for the Rabbinic concern about places where hametz is not ordinarily brought, places where there is no obligation to search at all. The Ramban is quoted as saying that the nullification discussed here does not mean to declare the hametz hefker – ownerless – rather it is a statement that for the upcoming holiday hametz is considered something that is repulsive to him.

According to Jewish tradition, we recite the formula for nullifying the hametz that appears printed in haggadot. This Aramaic formula is derived from the Geonim, who translated it from a Hebrew version that appears in the Jerusalem Talmud. Given what we have learned, it is important to make sure that the text is not simply read, but its meaning is understood and accepted.

Pesachim 7a-b

Rav Yehudah teaches that a berakha – a blessing - is said prior to performing the act of searching for the hametz.

Since Jews have been reciting this berakha for generations, Rav Yehudah's ruling hardly comes as a surprise. Nevertheless it is an important statement, as one could argue that the search is merely preparation for destroying the hametz, or even that the actual mitzvah is that no hametz should be found in one's house, so even destroying the hametz is simply preparation for that. The Rosh says that Rav Yehudah is teaching a valuable lesson – that the bedikah is an essential part of the mitzvah of bi'ur (=burning), so the berakha should be recited on it. According to the Maharam Halava, the Biblical obligation is the search for hametz; destroying the hametz is only a Rabbinic decree.

There are two different opinions about the version of the blessing that is said. The blessing begins with the traditional introductory words "Blessed are you, Hashem, our God, King of the world, who has commanded us…"

Rav Papi quotes Rava as requiring one to conclude with the words leva'er hametz – to destroy leaven.

Rav Papa quotes Rava as requiring that one say at the end al bi'ur hametz – on the destruction of leaven.

The Gemara concludes that the berakha that should be made is al bi'ur hametz. Based on the discussion in our Gemara, the Rishonim attempt to find general rules that would reliably indicate when the berakha that precedes the act of performing a mitzvah should be said as la'asot - an expression that we are commanded "to do" the mitzvah and when we should say al mitzvat that we are commanded "on the mitzvah of…"

According to Rabbenu Tam, it depends how quickly the mitzvah will be performed. When the mitzvah is done immediately after the berakha we say al mitzvat; if there will be a gap between the berakha and the mitzvah we say la'asot.

According to the Ramban, a mitzvah that can be done via a messenger gets the al mitzvat blessing; when a mitzvah must be done by the individual, he says la'asot.

Rabbenu Yehonatan argues that a mitzvah that is done once is blessed as la'asot, while a mitzvah that will be done many times receives the al mitzvat blessing.

Pesachim 8a-b

A baraita is quoted that teaches that there is no obligation to search for hametz in the cracks and holes that are in the walls of the house, due to the danger involved. While the Gemara makes a number of suggestions regarding what the danger might be that lurks in holes between houses, what concerns the Gemara is how this fits with Rabbi Elazar's teaching sheluhei mitzvah einum nizokim – that people involved in performing commandments are protected from danger.

Rav Ashi suggests that we may be concerned that aside from searching for hametz, perhaps the person will also turn his attention to find other missing objects during the search, and will not be actively involved in the mitzvah at all times. The Gemara responds to this by arguing that even someone who has outside intentions beyond performing a mitzvah will be credited for the mitzvah if it is done. An example of this is taught in a baraita that rules that someone who gives charity and states that he is giving it in the hope  that he will gain a share in the World-to-Come or  that his sick child will recover is, nevertheless, considered a tzaddik gamur – a completely righteous person. The Gemara concludes that the rule that people involved in performing commandments are protected from danger only applies when danger cannot be anticipated. In a situation that is clearly dangerous we cannot apply that rule.

With regard to the man who gives charity with the expectation that he will derive some personal benefit from it, who the baraita says is a tzaddik gamur, the Ran points out that he might be considered righteous, but he would not be considered a hassid – a pious person. Some say that the only case where we can ignore the intent of the person doing the mitzvah will be in the case of charity, where the recipient derives benefit from the assistance even if the intention of the giver was wrong. The Arukh has a variant reading in the Gemara, according to which the baraita does not label the man a tzaddik gamur, rather it rules that the donation was tzeddakah gemurah – full fledged charity, without any character judgment about the person who made the donation.

Pesachim 9a-b

The Mishnah on our daf (=page) teaches that one need not be concerned that a huldah dragged hametz into your house or from one place to another within the house.

The huldah discussed in the Mishnah is most likely the black rat Rattus rattus or one of its close relatives like the Alexandria black rat Rattus rattus alexandrinus. This is a large rodent that grows up to 25 centimeters in size with its tail. These creatures eat just about anything. The black rat (whose color is really a dark grey) even catches small animal as prey, including house mice that are smaller and weaker than the rat.

Rashi explains the Mishnah to be discussing whether we need to be concerned about a hulda bringing hametz into a place that had already been checked. The Rambam seems to understand the case otherwise. According to him, this Mishnah is the continuation of the first Mishnah in the tractate, which obligates bedikah only in places where hametz is normally brought. Here we are taught that we need not be concerned that perhaps an animal brought hametz into such a place.

The Gemara points out that the Mishnah's rule will only apply if we do not see the huldah running into the house with hametz. Were we to see the huldah doing that, we would, in fact, insist that the house be checked a second time, and we cannot assume that the huldah ate the hametz that he carried in.

The Gemara asks whether the requirement to carefully store hametz that is meant to be eaten on the morning of the 14^th of Nissan so that a further bedikah will not need to be done does not indicate that we are concerned that a huldah may move it around. In response to this question the Gemara quotes an interesting exchange between Abayye and Rava.

Abayye answers that we must distinguish between the 14^th of Nissan and prior to that date. Since before erev Pesach there is a lot of hametz around, a huldah would not need to hide hametz, and would simply eat it. On the 14^th, however, the huldah will realize that there is not much hametz around and will store it for future use.

Rava responds to this argument by saying v'khee hulda nevi'ah?! – is the rat a prophet that he knows that Pesach is upon us and that hametz will be in short supply?

In his response to Abayye, Rava is using a play on words. There is, in fact, a prophetess in Tanakh by the name of Hulda ha-Nevi'ah – see II Melakhim 22:14. More importantly, his argument seems to make so much sense that it is difficult to understand what Abayye was trying to say.

Rav Ya'akov Emden explains that according to Abayye the rat is sensitive to the fact that there is less food in the house on erev Pesach than there is under normal circumstances, and begins to hoard bread. This appears to be the explanation of the Jerusalem Talmud, as well.

In addition to his monumental translation and commentary on the Talmud, Rabbi Steinsaltz has authored dozens of books and hundreds of articles on a variety of topics, both Jewish and secular. For more information about Rabbi Steinsaltz’s groundbreaking work in Jewish education, visit www.steinsaltz.org or contact the Aleph Society at 212-840-1166.

This Week's Shabbat Shalom  |  www.ou.org